Scientific support for the Bible?
Rodney 101 comments
It's not going to go down well, on Rustylime but after a long spate of somewhat repetatively themed articles, I thought I'd post one from the other side of the fence. Actually I deliberated about this for a while, because I don't like comment forums that just turn into bun-fights and this has the potential to (not to mentioned I struggled to find something I actually wanted to post). However I'm going to do it for a bit of fun and discussion, here on RL. I've been thinking about doing a controversial RL article for some time, and being a maths nerd, this one looked like a goer, for me.
A career statistician has discovered something peculiar about the Bible - it makes sense mathematically.
Haim Shore, an atheist professor of mathematics and statistics from Ben-Gurion University, discovered something funny about the Bible, when performing a small experiment for fun (maths teachers are weird, after all). As a result, he went on to do further research and found at that at a deep mathematical level, the Bible adds up in ways that are simply too many and too complex to be a mere coincidence.
To further understand, you need to recall that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, an alphabet where numbers and letter are represented with the same characters. For example, the Hebrew letter, Alef (a), is a 1, Beit (b) is a 2, etc. Using the numerical value for words to understand their meaning is a common method of Biblical interpretation. Armed with this, Professor Shore went on to conduct an experiment into colours.
It turns out that Hebrew biblical words for "red", "blue", "yellow", "blue", "purple", etc actually match their exact light-wavelengths, when viewed as numbers, instead of letters. Considering the Bible was written some 4,000 years ago, this clearly pre-dates knowledge of the frequency of the wavelengths of the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
Surprised by this outcome, Shore went on to build models of other words found in the Bible, and found some other occurrences which he feels are too strong to be coincidences.
Shore next turned his attention to the diameters of the Earth, Sun, Moon, etc, as mentioned in the Bible. Following the same theorem as above, Shore converted these bodies into their numerical values and found that, while they don't add up to the same size as the real things, they maintain the exact same ratios in terms of size differences (compared to the diameters as published by NASA).
Shore went on to discover hundreds more examples like the above, such as the word for "year" adding up to the number of days in a year (which was not accurately know 4,000 years ago), and has now published a book, "Coincidences in the Bible".
Professor Shore is keen to make clear that he's not trying to convince anyone of anything and that he's likewise not trying to prove or disprove anything.
"...I have no intention of trying to tell anyone what this means, or how this information should be interpreted. All I did was publish what I found. As a scientist, as a matter of integrity, I felt compelled to offer what I'd found for discussion..."
Although he covers several more points, another notable issues is the old chestnut of 7 days of creation. A less mainstream but well known argument for 7 days of creation is that, from a central point of perspective, the Earth could very well have been created in 7 days. I.e. (in short), as you go faster, time slows down - as the Universe expands and time slows down. For those who don't know it, the very condensed version is something like this:
The universe started out as a big bang. A singularity. I.e. no distance (read: no time). Then it expanded. Time started. But it was really close together, so time was moving a fair bit faster, to our perspective (but importantly, not to the perspective of those outside the big bang). Over the next 15 billion years the universe expanded 1 trillion fold (1 million, million times). Forgetting the complex version of the maths, the really basic version says that we need to divide days by expansion, so: 15 billion * 365 / 1000000000000 = 5.5 (and on the 6th day God created man, etc). This is therefore where "modern time" kicks in.
So looking into this, Shore found that by comparing the ratios of the current estimated periods in which each period of life began on Earth and once again, they correlate almost perfectly (less than 1% variation).
"...I started by taking the events of the first chapter of Genesis - just the facts as given, no interpretation. 'Light' was created on the first day; on the second - the sky; on the fourth - the sun and the moon were set in place; on the fifth - marine and bird life; and on the sixth day, according to oral Torah, Adam and Eve were created at the end of the 14th hour..."
"...I took the six points and correlated each Biblical day - '1 day,' '2 day' - with the scientifically established time period. For example, science has established that galaxies started to be formed about 11.8 billion years ago, the sun and the moon, 4.5 billion years ago, etc. I plotted the cosmological age on the vertical axis and the Biblical timeline (day - one through six) on the horizontal axis. I found them to be arranged in a straight line..."
Shore calculates that the probability of this marrying up by pure chance is around 0.0021%.
Anyway, I am not trying to prove or disprove anything and certainly not trying to convince anyone to change their beliefs in any way - just coming form a background of physics and maths at university, I found this to be very interesting and a good trend-bucker article for RL. Hope you enjoyed it and get a good discussion going.
Mikey
Monday 7th December 2009 | 06:07 AMCoincidentally I found this just now: The God Equation
"Scientists working in the UK have discovered robust evidence that the creation of the earth and moon was a deliberate act. The researchers found that the earth, moon, and beyond were engineered according to a specific equation. They have dubbed it the God Equation. The equation, which looks like this..."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/the_god_equation.php
Rodney
Monday 7th December 2009 | 09:43 AM...in response to this comment by Joe Marco. Well if there's Fosters, you KNOW it's hell!
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 7th December 2009 | 10:25 AMCorrect me if I'm wrong here Rodney, but isn't this statastician just saying that there is mathematical symmetry in the Hebrew language.
I wonder if the dude tried to do it in english. I'd be willing to bet that the translation from Hebrew to aramaic to greek to latin to english ensured the loss of that symmetry.
Rodney
Monday 7th December 2009 | 10:43 AM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. No doubt there is going to be a loss in translation, if you go to English or Greek (does English even have a number/letter correlation system, anyway? I don't think "a" offically equals "1", etc but I could be wrong?).
None the less, colours' numerical values matching their wavelength frequency is a pretty nice coincidence , as is the maintenance of ratios when comparing celestial bodies and some of the other points raised. Those can't really be attributed to a language's symmetry.
Laiste
Monday 7th December 2009 | 11:00 AM...in response to this comment by Rodney. English does have a letter/ number system called numerology but its considered "new age" and therefore untrustworthy.
Personally, I'm fascinated by your article and the findings. All food for thought thats for sure.
Harrison
Monday 7th December 2009 | 03:57 PMThough we might have different views, our belief in God is the same and on that basis it can be said that Bible is a reflection of God and his creation.
God created the world in seven days and translate it into time intervals and you came at the same conclusion ! Colors have mathematical meanings, words have mathematical relationships and the entire book has a secret and interesting relation to our creator i.e. God.
We all accept that the Universe is pure science acting and reacting on the scientific principles so there is no wonder why God would not speak this language !
Science is the language of God and this is slowly but surely getting revealed to people.
Non only Christianity, it is true with all the religions of the world which have the same things to say but with slightly different tones and in different languages.
The simple question to all not believing in God is: why and how can we be different from science when the fact is that our Universe comes under it and not the other way round?
God is science and this is it ! :)
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 7th December 2009 | 06:09 PMIt's the "Chariots Of the Gods" all over again.
It's amazing how one can relate things to another and start to beleive that it proves a theory.
God made the heavens and Earth in 7 days. Then answer me this - how come the heavens are still being made?
Dave VB
Tuesday 8th December 2009 | 07:48 AMIt amazes me how the human mind can make something from nothing...
Gina Squitieri
Tuesday 8th December 2009 | 12:45 PM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). "God made the heavens and Earth in 7 days. Then answer me this - how come the heavens are still being made"
Precisely!
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 09:54 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). What is still being made specifically, and do you have evidence rather than theory and peer review
It helps to have a serious question Bob
Papa
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 10:06 AM...in response to this comment by V2. I believe he is referring to the infinite expansion of the universe? Just a guess...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 11:14 AM...in response to this comment by V2. You are such a funny guy V2, you clearly have no understanding of what scientific theory is. We base a scientific theory based on sceintific method (google it, you should find something in little words with pretty pictures to help you understand) which includes observations, experiment findings, evidence and we put it all together and call it a theory.
The theory its self evolves as new evidence and new findings become available.
Scientific theory is very different to theory from a Christian understanding.
From the Christian perspective, an airtight theory can be describes as, "wow, look at all of this stuff - heaps of water, heaps of sand, some sky and clear air to breath, a sun and a moon and heaps of twinkly stars at night... god did it".
Mind you, I suppose I would find it a whole lot easier to sleep at night if I thought that the purpose of my existence was to do nothing more that serve something I have no proof of existing.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 11:37 AM...in response to this comment by V2. V2 - The heavens or universe, what ever you call it is constantly growing. It wasn't just made and that was it - it is constantly changing, expanding, new stars being born, old stars dying. So to me at least the universe is recreating itself - being reborn every second.
If you think the Big Bang Theory is correct then the heavens was created in a split second not seven days.
If you believe it was created in seven days then again why is it still being created? It's not the package that counts it's what's in it - and whats in it is still being created.
In regards to evidence - I have no evidence, do you? I can only go by what I read and hear. Theory is all we have in regards to what happened.
Science has been and always will be second guess. We try and think that we know it all until someone else comes along with a new theory - science then takes a different approach until another theory is developed.
We all want to believe that something miraculous created everything we see but fail to understand that what we do see and feel is just simply what life and creation is.
Put simply what is really relevant is now not how it began or how it will end.
Trying to figure these things out scientifically or religiously is just a little bit of a distraction from what is truly important living life and appreciated what we all have during our very short time on Earth
.
Papa
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 11:59 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). "Trying to figure these things out scientifically or religiously is just a little bit of a distraction from what is truly important - living life and appreciated what we all have during our very short time on Earth
. "
I can appreciate that. But some of us enjoy and appreciate our lives but studying and debating these kind of things. Whether it be scientifically or theologically.
Rodney
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 12:31 PMExcept the Bible doesn't say that God created the universe as a static entity. It quite specifically says that creation is an ongoing process (It does not begin with the words "In the beginning, God created... that is yet another bad translation. It begins with the words "In the beginning *of* creation; implying an ongoing process). Interesting that TVBOB says he believes that the universe is recreated constantly - because that is precisely what the Talmud says. Creation is an ongoing process, not something completed.
Just another reason why you cannot attempt to read the Bible in English (and you sure as hell shouldn't be basing your life choices on some bad translation) and why you cannot attempt to understand the Bible (written law) wihtout Oral law. The two were *always* intended to go together; neither making any sense without the other. I find it utterly mind boggling how many people have such as strong opinion on the Bible (one way or the other) yet basically have no idea what is says - a point Jake made well in his recent interview with CJ.
Look, I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything here, but I think for all the much vaunted "scientific approach" and supposed scholarly discussion everyone likes to talk about here, people could make at least a passing effort to be talking about what is actually written in the Bible, not what some 50th-hand, highly edited, translation-with-an-agenda says. Otherwise, you're not really talking about facts, are you; and there's little point trying to pick apart the words of some text if you've got the wrong words...
At the end of the day, we're all just shooting the breeze here and (hopefully0 having a little bit of fun, so it doesn't really matter too much, I s'pose. Unless of course you're basing some element of your life on this book - in that case, you probably should at least know what is *actually* says.
:-)
Gina Squitieri
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 12:42 PM...in response to this comment by Rodney. Agreed!
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 02:34 PMI'd like the see the math for this.
Rodney
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 03:56 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Then you'll probably have to buy his book! (not a bad little marketing idea, really).
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 04:10 PM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Wow Jake
That was a great answer
Just not sure you understood my question though, and having said that. The question wasnt aimed in your direction
"What is still being made specifically, and do you have evidence rather than theory and peer review
It helps to have a serious question Bob "
Simply What is unmder creation at the moment
It is a very simple question, very simple
Papa? What in hell kinda name is Papa anyway?
Expansion is not creation, not being made.
My belly is expanding, my belly isnt creating
Expansion is not creation.
Ok Bob
The Stars
No new stars have been born, none that have ever been seen anyway
Some scientists will say they have seen stars bieng born but we know thats silly, some say we have seen New Stars, but again they are most probably old ones that we can now only just see
Rodney Rodney Rodney
Is a wonderful thing to have an opinion, but a even more wonderful thing to have an educated opinion
Genesis 2;1 Gods work was complete or Finished (My words)
See here, God is saying his work was completed or finished, so why would he have to do more
When you complete something its not perfect. Gods design was and he finished it
Dont make up silly stuff that you dont understand
Peter
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 04:34 PMWow now thats scattergun sledging at its finest :-) ding ding round three
Rodney
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 05:17 PMV2 V2 V2,
You're of course correct: it is a wonderful thing to have an opinion and it *is* even better when it's educated. ..So here's the actual words, instead of your version:
ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם
Anything else is a translation and therefore, by definition an interpretation.
You'll find that not only did I not make anything up, I simply presented the accepted mainstream understanding, i.e from the Talmud (tractate hagiga) "and (He) renews every day the work of creation".
As much as you may hate it or want to pretend otherwise, the Bible is a package deal of many volumes of books and consists of far more than some mis-translated King James.
Anytime you want to educate your opinion, feel free...
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 05:36 PMNow Rowdy Roddy
We both know thats not true
The direct translation
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them
http://scripturetext.com/genesis/2-1.htm
Look a link, a link with lots of translations of the original source
Unlike you and your mysterious post, I have supported my post
That is a link and a direct translation
What you are on about I have absolutely no idea
Vagueness is not a valid tool to use in a discussion
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 05:38 PMand just out of interest
What the hell does that mean and where does it come from
"and (He) renews every day the work of creation".
Rodney
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 05:55 PM...in response to this comment by V2. Where does it come from? It's right there in the comment:
"from the Talmud (tractate hagiga) "and (He) renews every day the work of creation". "
Not my fault if you can't read...
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 06:45 PMNo clearly that is not vague at all
not even remotely
Crystal clear in fact
"and (He) renews every day the work of creation"
Somehow your vagueness is related to the fact that this statement wont hold up to any scrutiny, somehow I think you are ducking and weaving a little here
and
If indeed that is in the Bible, as you suggest, then it is a clear contradiction. Surely a clear contradiction must be examined
Either You are wrong, the Talmud or the Bible is wrong or God is wrong
My moneys on your incompetence
Looky Looky
Mishnah (tractate hagiga is a part of the Mishnah?) Part of the Talmud
The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates. Statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject; or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing a consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as Tannaim.
Seems you are taking a Rabbis word over Gods
Your choice.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 06:50 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. 1+1=window
Rodney
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 06:54 PM...in response to this comment by V2. Sigh. You just don't (or won't) get it...
I'm not taking a Rabbi's word over God's... I'm taking the word of the Bible - as a whole and presenting it here. You on the other hand, are taking a mistranslated production from your local $2 shop and making up your own mind as to what it means.
But hey. It's easy and you don't have to put any effort in.
So I think I'm done here, coz this is now seriously pointless.
V2
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 09:00 PMYes, you are done Rod
When you quote
Mishnah (tractate hagiga is a part of the Mishnah?) Part of the Talmud
"The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates. Statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject; or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing a consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as Tannaim"
as the inspired word of God, you really are done
If it was the Bible lying boy, you would quote the bible. Not some silly
Mishnah (tractate hagiga is a part of the Mishnah?) Part of the Talmud
"The Mishnah is a compilation of legal opinions and debates. Statements in the Mishnah are typically terse, recording brief opinions of the rabbis debating a subject; or recording only an unattributed ruling, apparently representing a consensus view. The rabbis recorded in the Mishnah are known as Tannaim"
But hey, You are done Rod. I can see that, crystal clear.
You aint quoting the Bible because you aint got nothing to quote
You aint quoting the Bible because you aint got nothing to quote
You aint quoting the Bible because you aint got nothing to quote
Done like a dinner
Roasted and toasted and served like my BIATCH
I dont really have a biatch.
Actually not to even sure what a biatch is
Anyway Rod, you can be mine
Gina Squitieri
Wednesday 9th December 2009 | 11:34 PMMy two mites: Well, new cells grow to replace dead ones - like when we have a booboo! ;-) that's not news. I've heard (not saying it's fact) that a person's cells completely regenerate every seven+ years. The cells of the brain, it's been said, take a little longer.
But it appears plausible, otherwise, we'd always look like babies -- literally-- throughout our entire lifespan. Sure -- some people look like babies their entire life, figuratively speaking of course, but that's another topic.
V2
Thursday 10th December 2009 | 09:28 AM...in response to this comment by Gina Squitieri. I think Gina you may be confused here
Regenerating cells, are just that. Regenerated
Everything living is regenerating
Everything else is entrophising. I think I just made up a new word
I think Rod had a Boo Boo
Gina Squitieri
Thursday 10th December 2009 | 01:06 PM...in response to this comment by V2. V2, you're a bit of a bore, you are, dahling.
There is a definition for the word ***regenerate,*** V2. But you don't know it or otherwise, you would have never replied so contrarily to my comment. Here, let me help you by putting the definition out for you and anyone else to read. See if you still think the same way when you're done reading. If you still do think the way you do, then you RE-read it. (I sure hope you know what the prefix "re-" means.)
Definition for *****regenerate***** (from my computer dictionary)
verb |riˈjenəˌrāt| [ trans. ]
(of a living organism) regrow new [THAT'S ***NEW**** V2. Not the old ones, not the exact same ones, V2. N-E-W ones! Got it?] tissue to replace lost or injured tissue : a crab in the process of regenerating a claw.
[ intrans. ] (of an organ or tissue [LIKE YOUR LIVER? YES, LIKE A LIVER, V2.]) regrow : once destroyed, brain cells do not regenerate [THAT'S DEBATABLE!].
bring into renewed existence; generate again : the issue was regenerated last month.
bring new [Ah! THERE'S THAT WORD *****new****** AGAIN, V2!] and more vigorous life to (an area or institution), esp. in economic terms; revive : regenerating the inner cities.
(esp. in Christian use) give a ******NEW*********** and higher spiritual nature to.
[usu. as adj. ] ( regenerated) Chemistry precipitate (a natural polymer such as cellulose) in a different form following chemical processing, esp. in the form of fibers.
adjective |riˈjenərət|
reformed or reborn, esp. in a spiritual or moral sense.
DERIVATIVES
regenerator |-ˌrātər| noun
ORIGIN late Middle English (as an adjective): from Latin regeneratus [Oh, you're gonna love this one, V2:] you're 'C-R-E-A-T-E-D again' past participle of regenerare, from re- again + generare create. The verb dates from the mid 16th cent. [EMPHASIS mine.]
V2
Thursday 10th December 2009 | 01:30 PMYour creation and mine are two different concepts Gina
I am talking about god creating everything from nothing
You are talking regeneration of existing
Understand that or not, I dont mind either way
Pedantics, I dont care
V2
Thursday 10th December 2009 | 01:31 PM...in response to this comment by Rodney. Hey Rod?
Did you present any of the Bible, at all
Whoa, the silence is a great answer.................Chump
Gina Squitieri
Thursday 10th December 2009 | 03:28 PM...in response to this comment by V2. V2, why do you say that you believe every word in the bible is true and that you believe it, and then refuse to believe all of it?
God did NOT create everything from NOTHING. How absurd. How, pray tell, could He do that, V2? If He has nothing to work with, how's He gonna create something from it? Well?
Let's read it from the bible, shall we?
Hebrews 11:3 (New Living Translation)
3 By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at Gods command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.
Hebrews 11:3 (Amplified Bible)
3By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.
Hebrews 11:3 (King James Version)
3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(IN OTHER WORDS, V2, WHAT WE CAN SEE WITH OUR EYES CAME FROM THINGS THAT WE CANNOT SEE. Just because we can't see something (i.e., the wind, electrical currents, sound) doesn't mean it's not there - and it doesn't mean it's "nothing." It simply means that it is not able to be perceived with our eyes -- it's INvisible, not APPARENT to the EYES; not visible, BUT IN-visible. Still there! But UN-seen. Okay, sweetie.
Now, go tell all your Christian friends that God makes things from that which is UNseen; don't go around telling people God makes things form nothing! It's no wonder atheists laugh at Christians with all the crap they spew. It drove me up a wall, too. I can totally sympathize with them. The church and the things they taught had me so confused, I didn't know my arse from a hole in the ground. And then, to add insult to colossal injury, I was threatened with being burned for ever without end in some pit of literal fire and brimstone - all because I wasnt able to wrap my head around the crap they were trying to literally sell me (in the form of tithing), which meant I couldn't believe it, which made me a "non-believer." Ugh!!! Would you do me a favor and stop spewing that kind of junk, if you wouldn't mind? It hurts people's minds -- it screws them all up inside and makes them take their own lives!! Thanks!
V2
Sunday 13th December 2009 | 07:47 PMGina
I dont know what religion you are, but that space ship and Tom Cruise are on the way
Leave me alone
Hi Rod, got anything else yet?
Scientology, for the seriously Rod and Gina types
Gina Squitieri
Monday 14th December 2009 | 03:40 AMYes, you and Tyler want to me to leave you alone. You don't want to hear the Word of Jesus:
You know what you and Tyler remind me of?
Matthew 8:28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him TWO POSSESSED WITH DEVILS, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they [THE DEMONS] cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 8:30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
Matthew 8:31So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
Matthew 8:32And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and PERISHED in the waters.
As you wish, V2 and Tyler. Good-bye!
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 14th December 2009 | 07:01 AM...in response to this comment by V2. FYI V2, Rodney is an Orthodox Jew. So if you're trying to discredit his beliefs, you are effectively nullifying all of yours.
Afterall, if there were no Hebrews or Jews, there would be no Jesus, without Jesus, there would be no "Real men love Jesus" bumper stickers. Nonetheless, you'd still be at home with the best work you've ever done lying in wadded up tissues in a giant halo around your bed. Clean your room, V2!
Trent Greguhn
Monday 14th December 2009 | 07:07 AMThis just reeks of Texas Sharpshooter fallacy to me. Any other takes?
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 14th December 2009 | 08:14 AMTwo simple questions I would like someone to answer please:-
What came first - the chicken or the egg?
What came first - God or the Universe?
If you believe in the big bang theory then nothing existed even time before that point.
How did God create heaven and Earth if there was nothing before it happened?????
How did God exist before time and Space began?
If there was nothing then God was a God of nothing.
You cannot be a God if there is nothing to acknowledge that title.
Makes no sense to me.....................
Trent Greguhn
Monday 14th December 2009 | 08:29 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Actually, the big bang theory states there was a point of infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. Though at the time prior to the big bang there was no time because there was no space. There was just a singularity.
Though you've brought up an old argument. If God created the universe, what created God? Blah blah, infinite regression. The big bang theory does a good job explaining the expansion of the universe, and indeed at any point measured the universe is moving equidisant away from all sides of that point.
As has been pointed out, the universe is expanding.
Like I said, just sounds like Texas sharpshooter fallacy up and down.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 14th December 2009 | 08:30 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Technically, the egg. A subtle mutation allowing for an outer shell to the egg which was, over time, made harder and harder and thus, over time, better able to suit the environmental conditions making it better able to survive to hatching.
To your second question, Thoms Law prevents just about any religious person with a brain (there are a few... possibly none in the USA) from answering this question because it involves a circular logic of if either existed first, what created the former, then what created that, what created that and so on to infinity plus 1.
I have 2 good questions though; if God created everything on this planet, then why the f*ck do God's followers have a problem with the drugs that are naturally occuring.
Secondly, why do the fundamentalist christians have such a problem with homosexuality when they completely ignore the old testament and there is no mention of gays in the new testament?
Shit, sorry Rodney, a tad off topic!
V2
Monday 14th December 2009 | 09:02 AM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Sorry Jake
I must be confused.
I thought I asked Rod for evidence. Not you for silly comments
Yes Christianity is based on the Jewish Old Testament. Yet Rod wont and cant quote from it, the OT to prove his point. Because he is wrong,Ha
Orthodox or not he ran away because he was wrong, and he wont come back here because he knows it Ha
Hi Bob
You say God was the god of nothing? How do you figure that out
Before the Big Bang there was nothing
How did God create heaven and Earth if there was nothing before it happened
How did God exist before time and Space began?
Bob you make some very clear assumptions based on nothing
The Bible clearly states, There were Angels in heaven when the earth was created
So clearly Heaven and Angels existed
The Chicken came first
God created it to have eggs
Gina, I can read my Bible by myself
I dont need your interpretation or some other third partys belief, thanks anyway
Trent Greguhn
Monday 14th December 2009 | 09:10 AM...in response to this comment by V2. V2, you're wrong on several accounts.
There was not "nothing" before the big bang. Please read my previous post.
The chicken did not come first, the egg did. This has already been widely accepted among experts. The first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg. This was also likely to have taken place in prehistoric times.
Jake is also right.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Monday 14th December 2009 | 11:21 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Thanks V2 for you reply.
I base my assumptions on what I hear. Not to say they are correct but how else can we debate a point if not from information gathered by an individual over time?
Ok here is another assumption from me, relating back to my first post on the matter about the universe constantly being reborn.
I believe that the Universe is born and dies with each individual. Now you will probably say "but the universe lived before I was born and will keep living after I die".
Now I know for a fact that this is not true! Why you may ask?
Did the Universe exist before you were born? Answer no! It did not - it only started when you came into this life.
Will the universe die after you are gone? Answer yes! It cannot exist when you are dead.
The Universe can only exist to each and every one of us while we are alive and conscience to the fact. Even though Scientist says that the Universe has been around for billions of years - you have not!
You would not have known about God or anything if it wasn't for your conciseness / life force allowing you to experience it. In other words if you were not born then all of creation would not have come into being. You can only view life and creation from your own prospective - no one elses.
One could say that the Big Bang happens each time an individual is born!
It all starts and ends with you.........
Jake Farr-Wharton
Monday 14th December 2009 | 01:28 PM...in response to this comment by V2. Shit V2, you hurt my damn feelings.
FYI, no one on this site is obligated to reply to a dickhead's comments, not that I'm calling you a dickhead... I would never do that, it would be so rude!
Rodney is an intelligent guy who happens to be a Jew. From what I know of him from my time on RL, I know him to be better versed in the bible (in both Hebrew and English) than any other I've ever met (except maybe Papa who holds a degree in theology), so don't mistake not wanting to debate with someone who's idea of 'reading the bible' is going to church with not being able to.
You remind me of George Bush Jr, history's greatest repeated mistake, when you talk about the universe. "I guess the verdict is still out on how God invented the universe" George Bush jr.
On the bright side, your assertion that everything is the way that it is because it is written in the bible is brilliant. I just wrote in my bible (i.e. the word of God) that Jake Farr-Wharton is the one true God and so, by your beautiful, simplistic and child like logic, I am.
V2
Monday 14th December 2009 | 07:51 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. I just cant wait to see your evidence Trent
I wait with baited breath?
Pray tell, what caused this Big Bang
Jake, I will leave the name calling to you, and the defence of the Talmud to Rod.
Rod, hello Rod. Crikey, Rods gone and look Jake is defending him
Come on Rod, even Jake thinks you can find the answer to shut me up
Dont let Jake down
Baby Jake will cry
ask yourself
What would Jaky do
Rod it is a simple question. If the earth is always being re newed/created? Show me some Biblical evidence, yes from the Old Testament
Dont hide behind Jakes skirt anymore
There is another option, its called saying you are wrong and apologising for being silly
Bob, I was born
so were you
and it does exist
When I die, it will only be my flesh that dies.
I have a conscience, and that conscience is beyond the scope of science.
Man has a side to his existence that is beyond science, thats the spiritual side. It exists
Where does the universe stop?
Jake your just a scarecrow in a field, and you are not scary, or even witty.
Point scoring?
Trent Greguhn
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 03:45 AM...in response to this comment by V2. How about Hubble's law which stats velocity at which various galaxies are receding from the Earth is proportional to their distance from us.
v=HoD
What about the cosmic microwave background radiation as seen with a radio telescope where there is a faint background glow almost the same in all directions that is not associated with any object suggesting the dispersion at the time of the Big Bang.
How about the large-scale structure of the cosmos in which there are vast differences between recently formed galaxies, and those that took place shortly after the Big Bang.
We even have a good estimate for the age of the universe using the Hubble expansion and CMB.
Oh, as far as nothing existing before the Big Bang-- the singularity before the Big Bang was incredible and temperture, so in theory we should be able to locate some remnant of that. Sceintists discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin CMB which pervades the observable universe.
There could not have been nothing before the Big Bang, there had to be energy and matter in some respects prior to the Big Bang.
Though the theory is anything but perfect, it answers a lot more questions than any other current cosmological model.
Where's your evidence V2? The Bible?
Papa
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 05:56 AM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. "Rodney... I know him to be better versed in the bible (in both Hebrew and English) than any other I've ever met (except maybe Papa who holds a degree in theology)"
Hes definitely got me beat in the hebrew. He actually makes sense unlike Tyler from other threads claiming his hebrew knowledge.
Dave VB
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 07:27 AM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). Hey Bob,
Now you are heading into the realm of biocentrism. The universe only exists as it does because we PERCEIVE that it exists. But this is philosophy 101 and I am not a big fan of philosophy as it is limitless and never really answers any questions.
V2,
Your ability to turn an intelligent discussion into dribble astounds me. If you really want to know about the big bang, then google it. There are vast amounts of evidence to support this theory. At the same time, google "multiverse" this would give you an insight into what existed prior to the creation of 'our' universe as we are just a very small part of a whole that is currently beyond our capacity to perceive.
If you are going to argue points of science so vehemently, research it first. If you wish to dismiss it as horse swazzle, then make sure you have a reason for dismissing it and evidence to back up your dismissal instead of insinuating that we should all dismiss it because you do.
Go back to school (Not the home schooling that your "lack of" knowledge appears to have stemmed from) and learn a little about the world before you (dis)grace us with your prescence again.
Trent Greguhn
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 08:08 AM...in response to this comment by Dave VB. Agreed Dave.
That argument you give Bob is completely flawed. We all know it. No, there isn't a big bang everytime someone is born. This is irrational.
And agreed again Dave.
V2, go learn something.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 10:29 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Scary, no. witty, absolutely. And how the hell did you know I wear skirts?
V2, you are inept, incapable of reviewing and understanding evolution. That is sad. I just feel sorry for any progeny of yours.
Ah well, thank God for idiots, how on earth would I entertain myself otherwise.
TVBIZ(BOB)
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 11:37 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Trent,
What I am trying to say may sound irrational to people who cannot understand that time and space only exists to that individual who perceives it.
Did the Universe exist before you were born? If you answer yes then how did you know this? You didn't exist so how did you know the universe did? You will most likely say "but it did exist because they have guestimated the time since the Big Bang" so that proves that time and space happened before I was born.
I know it sounds silly and it's hard to explain - maybe someone else could explain it in a more detailed way but my final point is - time and space can only be measured by your own existence. What happens before and after an individuals lifespan from your own point of view is irrelevant.
Papa
Tuesday 15th December 2009 | 12:48 PM...in response to this comment by TVBIZ(BOB). I know the universe existed because of the sperm that was required to be deposited by my father into my mother roughly 9 months before I existed.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 16th December 2009 | 01:50 AMYou're wrong Bob. And we're borderline Solipsism right now.
As Papa said, there's multitudes of ways to determine there was a universe here before you. You should have learned that in your history class.
Also, to think that the universe only exists per interpretation of our mind means that there is no reason to do anything other than what you think is right and it almost completely eliminates empathy.
Again, Solipsism. Dangerous stuff there.
V2
Thursday 17th December 2009 | 08:43 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Well you are the winner
All that evidence might just get a peer review, even at UEA
Hi Dave, good call but proof?
Do you both seriously want me to believe that from nothing, suddenly...Big Bang
and
You call me a religious nutter
Bob
I am holding a can of beer, I have just now put it down
It doesnt know it exists, but I do
Jake you must be a woman. You talk lots and say nothing that anybody is interested in, also must bethat time of the month for you
Trent Greguhn
Friday 18th December 2009 | 03:29 AM...in response to this comment by V2. V2,
I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but there was not "nothing" before the Big Bang. Haven't I said this several times?
V2
Friday 18th December 2009 | 09:09 PMWhat no gunpowder
No spark
No flint
So before the Big Bang, nothing didnt exist, but then nothing- big banged
I dont know if you are a bit slow or its me Trent, but, can you see my problem
Wait for it
Wait for it
Wait for it
0+0 doesnt equal anything, but to you it eqauls everything...Hmmmm
I am confused
or
Maybe you are, a religious nut job>?
more faitrh than me, evidently
Trent Greguhn
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 05:18 AM...in response to this comment by V2. There is proof, as I said, of CMB.
There was energy and matter before the Big Bang. In fact, it was that condensed energy and matter that was at the heart of it. Therefore, there was something before the Big Bang.
Does that follow V2?
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 07:22 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. It makes no sense
It came from?.............. Outer space?
Evidence?...........any?
Energy and matter was always there, it always existed. Is that what you are saying?
Trent you call your energy and matter whatever you want
I call it God
God was always there, always existed
Yes Trent, you believe in God
Just not a Judeo Christian God
Science is Religion
Jake Farr-Wharton
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 08:24 AM...in response to this comment by V2. If you are attempting to discredit science by referring to it as religion, then consider what are you doing to religion!
You say that I say a lot without saying anything and because of that, refer to me as a woman with a period. You can refer to me as whatever you like V2, you've just outed yourself as a sexist bigot. Are you going to refer to me as being a black, homosexual, child molester next?
V2, I have to say that of all of the fundamentalist holy spirit guzzlers that I've had the pleasure of meeting online, and there have been many, you bring me the most pleasure. You wear your ignorance out there on your sleeve so that all can see. You make light of that which has been confirmed in favour of that which is written by desert nomads, who had no real understanding of the complexity of their universe, just a perspective based on a guess.
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 09:04 AM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Listen here you black, homosexual, child molester
I am only to aware of the Problems of Religion and foremost Christians, not Christianity- but Christians- Myself included
Your point is mute and your disdain for me is a sweet music to my ears
Those desert nomads silly writings have improved, changed, inspired humanity for thousands of years
Christ, as Dawkins said "Was years ahead of his time"
Papa
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 09:53 AM...in response to this comment by V2. "God was always there, always existed"
That sounds like a scientific and researchable statement. Oh wait, its not...
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 11:04 AMWell surely Trents views are
a scientific and researchable statement. Oh wait, its not...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 11:30 AM...in response to this comment by V2. I think you mean moot, not mute.
Sorry mate, but there is no, zero, zilch reason to believe that Jesus was ever alive, that there ever was such a person.
The bible, as has been proven time and time again, is not a source for historical empiricism.
If dawkins said that, then I would be very unimpressed. Jesus was just as violent, as pessimistic and as malevolent as the old testament god was. To suggest that he was years ahead of his time suggests that you've not read the new testament. Jesus was an advocate of violence and hated all non Jews, which, in case you've got your head in the sand, is you.
Gina Squitieri
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 12:40 PM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Where did Jesus hate all non-Jews? What is this He said to a non-Jew, more specifically a centurian (a professional officer of the Roman army):
Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found ANYone in Israel with such great faith."
And again what He said to the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:28. I don't believe you will ever find Him speaking this way to any Jew, including His own disciples.
And Jesus was not violent. Much would be gained from not reading the bible so literally. Jesus spoke in parables, remember? This is a parable. And parables are not literal. But in saying Jesus was violent, you're undoubtedly referring to what Jesus said in this parable:
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Now, if it were true that Jesus was being literal, then how come no one ever did that? Now, I grant you that there are those in the U.S. Military who take that literally, but they are going to be slain by the sword of Jesus mouth one day. Jesus was speaking of slaying with the sword (of his mouth -- His Word). This is not a literal sword and it's not a literal slaying. This is not to be taken literally, otherwise when Peter slashed off the ear of the soldier who came to arrest Jesus, He wouldn't have rebuked Peter for having done that and then turned around and healed the soldier. It's like when someone says something to someone and it shuts their mouths and they come back and respond "Oh, you slay me!" THAT's what that's all about. Now if Jesus were violent, then He would have never said to those who were nailing Him to the cross Jesus said, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." He would've yelled out instead, "Peter, where's your sword! Get it and kill these SOBs!" But He didn't do that, did He? He never spoke as literally as did King David on his own deathbed when he commissioned his son to kill his enemies (literally) and make it bloody. (1 Kings 2:9)
V2
Saturday 19th December 2009 | 09:03 PM...in response to this comment by Jake Farr-Wharton. Go read your Bible Jake "The God delusion" To suggest its not in there suggests that you've not read the new testament of Dork.........ins
Its somewhere innit
Moot? Yeah you win, my mistake I have a boiled lolly here for you to collect
""""Jesus was just as violent, as pessimistic and as malevolent as the old testament god was. To suggest that he was years ahead of his time suggests that you've not read the new testament. Jesus was an advocate of violence and hated all non Jews, which, in case you've got your head in the sand, is you."""
I hate to be a nuisance but can you show me any evidence Rod...ooops I meant Jake....Any?
Yawn
Trent Greguhn
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 01:42 AMHave you heard of empirical evidence V2?
Have you heard of Cosmic Background Radiation?
Of course you haven't V2. Science is not religion, it's only seen that way by fundamentalists who don't understand and feel threatened by its discoveries. Which is really nothing to be threatened by because each scientific achievement benefits human kind.
That being said, you obviously know nothing of what I'm talking about because if you did you'd be able to discuss it on a rational and intellectual level. Instead you just spout, "You're wrong! I'm right!" rhetoric and hope someone sees it your way.
V2
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 08:27 AM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. You are absolutely correct Trent. I dont know everything
I also know how frustrating talking to somebody that doesnt know everything I know is
Evidence is not proof, empirical or otherwise. We both know that
Oddly Trent I agree, Science is not a religion, so why are we turning it in to a religion. Why are so many scientists becoming high priests, why are Peer reviews looked on as religious tenants.
Why is science being taken out from the public domain and whispered about behind closed doors.
Why have most Scientists taken this holier than thou I am better than you attitude. Science is becoming a religion
Trent , of course something existed before us
Where did it come from is the question, and did it have the ability to create
Dont change this into an argument about how clever you are, and dumb I am
Somethings in this universe are beyond science and logic
Trent Greguhn
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 03:58 PM...in response to this comment by V2. I understand that, but it's a better start than the bible from where I'm sitting.
So if God existed before the universe, what existed before God? Where did God come from?
Papa
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 04:25 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Well, Technically they are the trinity. So Jesus came from God, The holy spirit from Jesus, and its a circular progression. The trinity has always been here. There is no questioning that....
:)
V2
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 08:29 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn. Funny question from you Trent
Considering I asked you about Radiation and its beginning or CMB or whatever
So you tell me where it came from
Remember I am the dummy, you are the scientist
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
For several centuries, modern science was pretty much a free intellectual market populated by independent entrepreneurs who shared the goal of understanding how the world works. Nowadays its a corporate enterprise where patents, pay-offs, prestige, and power take priority over getting at the scientific truth, and the powers-that-be have established knowledge monopolies.
Gina Squitieri
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 10:45 PMI always was told in Christendom that God was a Trinity (made up of 3 separate godheads equaling 1 God (chuckles)), until I discovered that the Holy Spirit is n-e-v-e-r called God anywhere. Hopefully this will be of help to some here. If not, I apologize for any confusion and annoyance this may cause.
http://bible-truths.com/trinity.html
[Begin Quote]
"So lets do something else. Lets look at a few Scriptures that Trinitarians claim add credence to their theory. I will take no more than a few pages to try and clarify the Scriptural teaching on who, what, and how many Gods there really are.
First of all we must dispense with I John 5:7 which reads in the King James Version
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
There is a problem with this verse. The words that I typed in bold print are not Scripture. They should NOT be in the Bible. There are many Bibles that do not contain these words. Here are a few:
The Concordant Literal New Testament: "...seeing that three there are that are testifying, the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are for the one thing."
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: "For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement."
A New Translation by James Moffatt: "The witnesses are three, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three of them are in accord."
The Emphatic Diaglott: "For there are three which testify; the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are of one."
The Emphatic Diaglott has a footnote:
"This text concerning the heavenly witnesses [as found in some versions] is NOT contained in ANY Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the 15th century. It is not cited by ANY of the Greek ecclesiastical writers; nor by ANY of the early Latin fathers..."
The Holy Bible--New Catholic Version: "For there are three that bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."
The brackets are supplied by the translators. This version also has a footnote:
"According to the evidence of many manuscripts, and the majority of commentators, these verses should read: For there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. The Holy See reserves to itself the right to pass finally on the origin of the present reading."
The New Testament from 26 Translations: Footnote, page 1183:
"The words between bear record (verse 7) and the spirit (verse 8) are now recognized as not adequately supported by original manuscripts."
[End Quote]
Papa
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 10:53 PM...in response to this comment by Gina Squitieri. "...I discovered that the Holy Spirit is n-e-v-e-r called God anywhere."
Yup! But its people like Tyler to cling to tradition so strongly its hard for them to critically see anything about their religion.
Trent Greguhn
Sunday 20th December 2009 | 11:59 PMI'm glad V2 decided not to answer my question.
If you're asking where the energy came from at the beginning of the universe, one hypothesis is it came from a false vacuum that formed by means of a random quantum fluctuation. But obviously there's no proof, is it's not called the Big Bang Law.
I'm not saying the big bang theory is for sure how the universe came to be, only positing that there is a lot of evidence to suggest something like that happened.
And science has been politically for a while V2, the scientists have to get their funding from somewhere.
Still, it doesn't mean they're not trying to find the answers to the greatest questions.
Gina Squitieri
Monday 21st December 2009 | 12:19 AMThere is a song by King David in 2 Samuel 22 and in it he speaks of the "BLAST" of the breath of His [God's] nostrils. Then I checked out the definition of "blast":
blast |blast| noun
1 a destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outward from an explosion : they were thrown backward by the blast.
an explosion or explosive firing, esp. of a bomb : a bomb blast | a shotgun blast.
( at) full blast at maximum power or intensity : the heat is on full blast.
PHRASAL VERBS
blast off (of a rocket or spacecraft) take off from a L-a-u-n-c-h-i-n-g site.
V2
Monday 21st December 2009 | 10:08 PM...in response to this comment by Trent Greguhn.
"So if God existed before the universe, what existed before God? Where did God come from? "
I dont have an answer Trent
Like I said earlier
"You are absolutely correct Trent. I dont know everything "
You might, I dont
Sorry
I have a finite mind, I dont claim infinite wisdom, like I said
"Remember I am the dummy, you are the scientist"
Answers to questions or answers to justify funding's?
Tra La la la lah (Bony M)
Trent Greguhn
Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 03:19 AM...in response to this comment by V2. But I thought the Bible has all the answers? Isn't that what religion says every other day? That they have all the answers?
I'm no scientist, all I imply is that there are questions and answers out there that religion just can't give us.
V2
Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 03:38 PMEvidently according to you Trent, the Bible has all the answers
But
Hey lets not argue semantics
You dont know the Bible, or even understand the basics of Christianity
"But I thought the Bible has all the answers?"
Try to think without using others misconceptions. Could go a long way
Science has alllll the answers though, or will find them. Dont it
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 05:40 PM...in response to this comment by V2. The bible has no answers, it has stories and it has guesses. The Jews understand this and never stop learning, the Christians either actively ignore all contrary learning or they attempt to discredit it by putting it under house arrest.
I was a Christian, for a great many years. I had many reasons to believe that which I had no proof for. But then, something changed and the evidence became important. Once that began, there was no turning back and, while it was a tough process, I'm so glad it happened.
But that's cool V2, you feel free to live with your delusions that what was written over a millenia before the industrial revolution contains all that humanity has to learn.
V2
Tuesday 22nd December 2009 | 08:41 PMFunny Jake I was an atheist for a good many years thinking that man came from monkeys and the Bible was an old meaningless Book
So what?
Thats right, you preach a sermon on your views, many sermons
Believe what you like, its not my business
I know plenty of atheists and none carry on like you. I guess that makes you a religious fanatic
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:39 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Not according to me V2, according to Christian religion.
I don't for one second believe the bible has any substantial answers the human individual can't discover on its own.
And I don't know the bible? I studied the bible with a Jewish professor in hebrew at my University. I took several bible as literature classes. Don't tell me I don't know the bible.
Science doesn't have all the answers, but I trust the human race will come up with some of the answers to the questions we need at this time.
Keep spouting your nonsense V2.
V2
Wednesday 23rd December 2009 | 04:40 PMYou studied Hebrew with a Jew, Trent? Go figure?
You dont know the Bible, I know that, thats obvious when I read your posts Trent
You trust the human race? I am sure that they will find another "Final solution" soon.
Sorry I dont trust the human race. I trust my God
Oh and Trent and Jake, other than the gnashing of teeth and renting of clothing, why would I want to be an atheist like you
Why would I want to be a self serving arrogant hypocrite with no values
Yes you must have values, what I dont understand is why you have them?
If you dont reply, I wont
Trent Greguhn
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:38 AM...in response to this comment by V2. "You studied Hebrew with a Jew, Trent? Go figure?"
And just what are you implying by that V2?
If you're so confident that I don't know anything about the bible then please point out my errors for me. I would love to hear about it.
I do trust the human race. I think the human race on a whole is good, and trys to be good, but sometimes their perspective gets skewed.
You trust your God? The same God that had a volcano erupt today and is making tens of thousdans of people spend Christmas in evacuee camps? The same God that allows children to be born with genetic diseases every day? That the God you trust?
"Oh and Trent and Jake, other than the gnashing of teeth and renting of clothing"
What?
"Why would I want to be a self serving arrogant hypocrite with no values
Yes you must have values, what I dont understand is why you have them?"
What does this mean V2? "You have no values, yes you must have values." What are you trying to say? We have values because we're good human beings and we choose to be good. We don't do it to go to heaven or do it so we don't go to hell. We do right because it's right.
Simple as that.
V2
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 07:12 AMTrent, you choose your values and who to apply them to, its not hard to figure out
and yes I do trust my God
He does allow volcanoes earthquakes and bushfires..murders and wars. Because that is the world after Sin was brought in to it.
We have free will, we choose for ourselves.
Babies with genetic disease? mothers who are Junkies, drug companies that sold thalidomide, chemicals in the water, cigarette smokers
Come on mate, you cant in all honesty blame God for that. Churlish
As to the Bible
"I don't for one second believe the bible has any substantial answers the human individual can't discover on its own. "
Well? Doesnt that answer your own question
Are you not saying that the Bible has all the answers, yet saying you understand it, then say according to Christian Religion it has the answers???
Yes I am confused as well
The Christian faith doesnt say the Bible has all the answers. YOU DID
The Bible doesnt say it has all the answers YOU DID
The Bible doesthyough, have "the" answer, the one big answer. His name is Jesus
You know why he is the answer. Cos I can see the hate he inspires from people like you
What was your question
Trent I dont want to be like You or Jake
I like who I am, I like my life. I like my family and friends
I love being a Christian, Why should I be like you or Jake?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 08:39 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Ok V2, lets indulge you for a second then.
You say that God allows all sorts of natural disasters, murder and wars because of sin, which according to your bible, began after Eve ate the apple of the tree of knowledge. If you look at the chronology of the bible, that time would have occurred around 5-7000 years ago.
Geological data shows that volcano have been erupting, earthquakes shaking and tidal waves crashing for frigging aeons, far more than 7000 years.
Furthermore, the ancient Egyptians and Assyrian races predate your stupid Adam and Eve by several thousand years. They were tribal societies who also warred with each other and many other tribal societies of the time.
What else have you got?
V2
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 01:04 PMEvidently Jake, you must have an insurmountable amount of evidence
I can wait
What have you got
A geological time scale thats based on 200 year old unproven science. Rocks dated by fossils and fossils used to date rocks
Sadly Jake it would be a flawed argument. I dont know what you believe, actually be suprised if you knew what you believed. Soo, having said that.
I dont see any point
DavidS
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 03:12 PMV2, first off I can't help but notice you accuse others for running away from you when they don't have an answer to counter your flawless logic. I can't help but notice that, while you might not disappear, you simply ignore questions aimed at you and simply write off the the person who posed the question as wrong. I have also noticed you tend to make stabs at the people instead of their views. Neither of these practices are very conducive to a very good debate.
I will be the first to admit that science doesn't have all the answers to the questions that we, as humans, can pose. It does, however, offer a constantly evolving system that we can attempt to answer these questions by. The scientific method allows people to pose a hypothesis and test it. If the hypothesis was correct it is tested again. If the test always turns out in a certain way then we consider it to be a law. It takes thousands of tests for something to be accepted as a law in the scientific community. It does, however, only test to disprove a law.
I'd love if there was one simple answer to everything in the world; many people are very content with there being one. Often people turn to god as a simple answer to these questions. Sure science and the laws of nature still apply but when it comes down to it, you can simply say that God put these laws in place.
I have no problem with someone who chooses to live their life in this way. My entire family is very religious. If it gives you a sense of comfort in life, well, then you are entitled to it. For many people, it's not a simple accepting a higher power. Many people look to science as a way to explain the universe. Who knows maybe at the end it really is just a god who created the universe via the big bang?
It's said that god works in mysterious ways. God gave humans free will so they could do as they choose. Who are you to tell another human what to think or how to act. God allowed for them to make up their own mind. By telling someone what to think or how to act you are removing God's free will from them. Perhaps this is the devil's handy work or simply a test from God. Who knows?
The bible is said to be the written word of God. One thing that you have to realize is that God is perfect, man is not. God relayed his word to man. Man, being imperfect, cannot possibly have put to word God's will verbatim. On top of this the bible has gone through many copies and translations. Discrediting someone else's quotation of the bible because it does not match yours would be a foolish move. As far as I am concerned on the bible, the oldest existing copy should be the one consulted, which is impossible for most people due to a language barrier, and even then it should not be interrupted literally. The beauty of the bible is that it can be interrupted in many ways. The christian god is a personal god after all.
V2
Thursday 24th December 2009 | 06:19 PMDave
I have never come in to this "Discussion" suggesting I have all the answers, have I?
Question that I dont answer
List them. Maybe I missed them
Go ahead and list all of these questions Dave. I will endeavor to answer all of them individually, but again, as I said before
I dont have all the answers
Flawless logic Pray tell?
Explain testing in regards to science Dave. Thats a question
Explain Science to me Dave Thats another question
You are Right Dave. Nobody has the right to tell others how to act. I agree. Cept maybe Police, Politicians (evidently) Doctors Soldiers Parents, should I go on. Doesnt justify anymore of an answer does it Dave, really?
Dave, I think people should respect each other and their beliefs. I dont have a problem with that. Jesus never taught bigotry or hate
I must be miss understanding you, what are you are accusing me of?
I asked Rod a question...Refused
Jake...refused
Plenty of people sidestep answers here
But I will answer any that I can answer
or maybe I do answer the questions but you dont understand my answer
As for the Bible and its interpretations. It was written in languages that are still used today
Just as a little bi line though
If God created the world, surely he could sort out an English translation for his book, maybe?
and by the way Dave, go read the original article
I aint going anywhere
Trent Greguhn
Friday 25th December 2009 | 05:02 AM...in response to this comment by V2. Funny you talk about refusing questions V2, because you still didn't tell me what you meant by this little comment,
"You studied Hebrew with a Jew, Trent? Go figure?"
When does sin have anything to do with natural disasters? Sin does not wrought hurricanes.
"Babies with genetic disease? mothers who are Junkies, drug companies that sold thalidomide, chemicals in the water, cigarette smokers "
Yeah V2? What about before all of that? 500 years ago there wasn't any of that and yet still babies were born with genetic diseases. So, what's your explanation for that one?
I don't think the bible has all the answers, Christians do, and I think there is a fundamental problem with that.
Jesus doesn't cause hate from me, I don't hate Jesus anymore than I would Holden Caulfield. I don't like it when fundamental Christians espouse their hate and misinformed ideas on science and the way the world works. There is no science in the bible because science didn't exist for 1500 years after the bible was written. The two cannot co-exist.
It's hard to know what you're asking though V2 due to your sentence structure and diction.
DavidS
Friday 25th December 2009 | 05:59 AMV2, there have been several questions that you have not answered. Trent made a nice list right above me. I'm not saying you should all the answers because no mortal does. I don't claim to have all the answers, nor will I ever.
Testing, in science, is setting up a system to parameters and then using proven methods to verify or disprove a claim.
An example: We know that water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, H2O. We arrive at this conclusion by running an electrical current through water which is able to break the bonds of the elements. We are left with Hydrogen and Oxygen in a pure state. We can observe that there is roughly twice as much hydrogen as there is oxygen. We are able to test what these elements are by a number of ways, the most simple is by simply taking the mass of a known amount of gas.
This is simply an example of one of the tests that we do in science, there are many thousands more of these tests.
Science is any field of study. Theology, the study of divine beings (e.g. God) is a science.
Nobody has the right to dictate the life of another. Having the ability to do so does not make it right. I have the ability to kill, yet we still consider killing, under most circumstances, wrong.
Police and Soldiers enforce a set of laws that we agree to follow in a social contract to be allowed to live in our society. I wasn't accusing you of anything. I simply stated that God gave humans free will and forcing someone to follow God is directly going against God himself.
You again make a common misconception. God did not write the bible. God relayed the stories to man who passed it along for generations before they ever wrote it down. English did not exist at the time of the bible's first printing. If your argument is that the modern English version of a bible is as accurate as the oldest version in Hebrew or Aramaic then you are wrong. It is a proven fact that the more editions and translations a book goes through the less accurate it is. I can't think of any high official in any of the branches of Christianity, except possibly The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that would agree the modern English version is as accurate as the oldest existing copy.
DavidS
Friday 25th December 2009 | 06:01 AMAs for reading the original article; I did. I found it interesting but I have to agree with Trent. It reeks of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. If we look for a pattern in something, we will find one.
V2
Saturday 26th December 2009 | 08:38 AMTrent
You studied Hebrew did yah. With a Jew. Impartial Jew I guess. At a University no less
You didnt study anything Trent. You were taught what to think and how to think by somebody who knows how to persuade others how to think.
Universitys and professors dont teach you how to think, they teach you to listen
Sin, Adams sin corrupted this world. God made it perfect, sin destroyed it.
Its Biblical, doubt you care or could understand it so I dont wish to waste my time.
Plenty of Bible studies if you are interested
500 years ago. Sorry you are right we had none of that did we Trent
Seriously I must be talking to a very young naive person
500 years ago people lived to an average of about 30 years of age, and disease was rampant
Go study life 500 years ago and then pose a more credible statement
I have said it clearly before, but for you I will re iterate. The Bible doesnt have all the answers, nor do I
I have never said otherwise
Fundamentalist Christianity........Care to explain what that means to you Trent
Fundamentalist Christianity to me is a Christian who takes on the Bible, as Gods word, Old and New Testaments......though, follows Christs teachings as much as possible
Science in the Bible Trent?
Type in to your browser Trent "Science in the Bible" Search it
I dont feel I should have to speak to you as a Child, nor spell every answer out for you
But hey, you went to Uni, lost the ability to think for yourself didyah
You cant understand my answers, I can see that now. You need me to speak to you as a Child
I will endeavour to put in a little more effort for you in future
Dave. Accept it or not, plenty of people need to be told how to act. I am one of them
Talk as much as you like, but the fact remains the same.
People for the most part are not nice
As for the Bible and its accuracy. Dead Sea Scrolls?
King James Version?
They still have the originals Dave
That is my answer Dave, those words; I dont care to elaborate anymore
You have an opinion based on ignorance that cant be changed, so I wont even try
True my words are vague. I guess I am hoping that you will use your own mind
Testing in science Dave...............Scientific testing even
Science deals with things that are testable, observable, demonstrable and repeatable yeah repeatable
Outside of that, religion Dave, its Religion
Hmmm, bet you never learned that
Trent Greguhn
Saturday 26th December 2009 | 02:24 PM"Universitys and professors dont teach you how to think, they teach you to listen "
Wrong, that's what churches do. Churches don't want you to think.
"500 years ago people lived to an average of about 30 years of age, and disease was rampant
Go study life 500 years ago and then pose a more credible statement "
That's exactly my point V2. Why was disease rampant? Disease was not man-made 500 years ago. Please explain why disease and genetic diseases still existed.
Hey V2, how about you personally explain to me what science there is in the bible. Please, I would love to hear it from your mouth personally.
You have no capacity for reading comprehension V2.
V2
Saturday 26th December 2009 | 06:05 PMYawn
or
*sigh*
No Trent I wont
I say Universitys are places that stop you from thinking. You say that Churches are. Then GUESS what I will say again, repetitively. Have a guess
No Trent again, I wont answer your question about the Bible and science. Its public record, at your fingertips. You are not a baby and I will not feed you
Point is Trent...........You dont care. Nothing that I can show you matters. So why should I bother?
Trent, do you know why disease was never a big issue for the Jews?
I thought not
They followed Gods law.
and no I am not going to explain it Trent. You already know cos you studied Hebrew with a Jewish prof, so obviously its a waste of my time
My hero!
Testable, observable, demonstrable and repeatable yeah repeatable
DavidS
Sunday 27th December 2009 | 05:25 AMThe first thing I was told at university, "All your life you have been told what to think, now is the time where we teach you how to think."
Perhaps universities are much different from where you come from. From my guess you have never been to a university. You seem smart enough but you seem to try and cast a cloud over people who seek out higher education. This shows to me you were probably never allowed to continue your education.
People do need guidelines to follow so they don't interfere with another person's freedoms. People do not *need* to be told what to do. Please stop trying to pass your personal views off as fact. It is becoming rather old.
As for "niceness" please tell me what is nice. Nice is a word used to describe what we believe, as a society, to be correct. There are many different societies and each has a varying definition of nice. Your feeling that most people aren't "nice" shows you have little faith in society as a whole. I would also guess you feel that most Christians are nice.
You are trying to tell me that the King James Bible is totally accurate? Sure the original may still be in existence but that's not really that large of a feat seeing as it was released in the early 1600's.
According to the bible Pi = 3
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1kings 7:23
According to the bible insects have four legs not six.
"[21] Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [22] Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." Leviticus 11:21,22
Sure these are two of the more common, larger errors, yet they do exist in the bible.
Ashkenazi Jews are at a higher risk for certain cancers such as a breast and colorectal. They have a higher likely hood of cystic fibrosis. These are probably just due to man made substances though right? It's a fact nobody died from cancer until cancer was discovered. Obviously there was no record of diseases that hadn't been discovered until recent times.
Just some food for thought. There were many religions before Christianity and there will be many more after. My one thought is that if you really want to get into heaven you had better be a Jew, they are, after all, God's chosen people.
If you wish to live your life in ignorance then you are free to do so. I have no right to tell you how to think. You are a self proclaimed free thinker after all.
V2
Sunday 27th December 2009 | 07:24 AMFirst thing you heard at Uni Dave was a lie
Lets trot out the same old same old tired little issues about the KJV
---------------
*According to the bible Pi = 3
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." 1kings 7:23
-----------------
This old chestnut aint worth a rebuttal
---------------------
According to the bible insects have four legs not six.
"[21] Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [22] Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind." Leviticus 11:21,22
---------------------
as is this question
I would consider answering these questions, but seriously Dave
Does it matter or even interest you. Is it worth my time. The answers, would never be acceptable anyway.
If I did answer those questions, you would ask me more about Chariots and Charioteers. The Bible will never be acceptable to you and this is no more than a game of one upmanship.
You are welcome to believe what you want Dave
My issue is with respecting others and their opinions
is this site that attacks everything Christian
Yes I am a Christian, and that is what I teach my family, my children
Guidelines Dave? If people wont follow "YOUR" guidelines Dave. What should we do
Who makes the guidelines Dave.....YOU?
I dont think you are a God yet buddy I dont want to live under your guidelines
As for the Jewish issue
Dave you have no Idea at all what you are talking about...None
Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Why do you think the Pharisees killed Christ?
Little faith in society, *ahem* None mate none at all
Geese, look at all the questions I posed and the complete lack of answers
No suprise there
Darkness runs from the light
Trent Greguhn
Monday 28th December 2009 | 03:56 AM...in response to this comment by V2. I am more and more shocked by your responses V2. You demand answers yet you say answering any of our questions is a waste of time. How do you expect to get respect from anyone acting that way?
I disagree with Dave. I don't think you've ever been to a University or higher education-- if you had, you're sentence structure, grammar, and coherency would be tolerable.
"No Trent again, I wont answer your question about the Bible and science. Its public record, at your fingertips. You are not a baby and I will not feed you "
What a cop out. You have no information of your own V2, and I've done more than my fair amount of studying to know that you have no idea what you're talking about. You just form a strawman and superimpose your own foibles onto me. It doesn't change the fact that you have not addressed any of my questions or answers. All you've done from the very beginning is demean and deride everything I say without any foundation for your own argument.
Please explain how Jews never struggled with disease? Present your evidence.
You should try answering Dave's questions. You seem to have the answer from the implication you've made. I'd really like to see what you have to say.
I've answered all your questions V2. Please answer mine.
Trent Greguhn
Wednesday 30th December 2009 | 05:46 AM...in response to this comment by V2. So you admit that you don't have any evidence to your claims and you can't answer my questions?
Well I wasn't quite expecting that, but I'll take it.
Joe Marco
Monday 7th December 2009 | 03:31 AMGreat!...looks like we're all going to hell! Thanks a lot Rodney! thanks for nothing...I'll save you a seat next to me where it's really warm...Don't forget the Fosters!